that films must be refused classification if they contain:

descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years; gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of: … cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact; sexual violence,”  Richard Egan said. 

“The young captives in Salo who were sexually abused, raped, tortured and forced to eat excrement were portrayed as being under the age of 18.  One of the actors was only 17 when the film was made.”

The Classification Review Board decision to overturn the ban, like the Classification Board decision last month, was not unanimous.   Both boards claimed that the new Salo DVD’s inclusion of additional material explaining the film’s background would mitigate the impact on the viewer.

“This claim doesn’t make sense,” Richard Egan said.  “Even Salo supporters concede that additional material on a DVD usually goes unwatched – so it would not affect the extreme impact on the viewer of certain scenes in the film.”

The Review Board suggested that the consumer advice on the film – that it contains “scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity” – would prevent viewers from seeing the DVD if they are likely to be offended by it.

“Offensiveness is not the issue,” Richard Egan said.  “This consumer advice could act as an inducement to paedophiles or others who take pleasure in viewing the extreme degradation of others.  Yesterday’s Review Board ruling has set a very dangerous precedent.”
……………………..
FamilyVoice Australia        www.fava.org.au
A Christian voice for families, faith and freedom

The new American  movie Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed, directed by Nathan Frankowshi and hosted by Ben Stein, currently on its theatrical release in NZ, highlights a fundamental problem that is inherent in the NZ Science curriculum. In the section titled “Making sense of the Living world” careful analysis reveals that Neo Darwinist Theory  (i.e. Molecules-to-Man Evolution via natural selection) is the sole basis allowed for all scientific investigation. The other leading origins theory – Intelligent Design – doesn’t get a mention. Therefore students are being prevented from engaging in the controversial and exciting debate on the competing ideas about the origins of life. What they are receiving in their life sciences education amounts to a large dose of philosophical indoctrination into scientific naturalism – read atheism. God has indeed been “expelled” or censored out of the NZ  Science curriculum. Will our National Anthem of “God Defend New Zealand” be next to be ‘expelled’ from our ‘enlightened’ secular culture?

For more information on the film see: www.expelledthemovie.com

Additional Comments Relevant to Society’s Proposed Lower Classification of the DVD End of the Spear and Formal Application for Leave.

5 February 2008

Further to the information submitted earlier by fax by the Society to the Secretary of Internal Affairs re the Application for Leave, please add the following:

It has come the attention of the Society today that the Film and Video Labelling Body has now approved a new classification of the film End of the Spear (originally classified on 20/12/07 as R16 by the FVLB by [incorrectly] cross-classifying it with the American DVD version) following a submission for a revised classification from the film’s distributor Life Resources Ltd.

The distributor sent an email to the Society today stating:

“Bill Hood has passed the film with a rating of M Medium Level Violence….”
Lime Light Motion Picture Company
1st Floor 320 Manchester Street
Christchurch (Life Resources Building)
8142 New Zealand

The Society contends that this reclassification should be taken into account by the Secretary in his decision on granting leave to the Society in its application relating to the DVD version classified by the OFLC as R16 (OFLC Ref No. 702607).

A number of films in the Xena Warrior Princess series contain lengthy depictions of “medium level violence” involving the deaths of combatants and injuries and mutilation inflicted on others. These publications have been classified unrestricted – M – recommended for mature audiences 16 years of age and over, by the Film and Video Labelling Body (FVLB). They have not been referred by the FVLB to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) for classification because nothing in the film has been considered injurious to the public good. The FVLB has given these films description notes: “Contains medium level violence”. These films are all infested with relentless violence, for the purpose of entertainment.

The Console Game Xena Warrior Princess was referred to the OFLC by the FVLB and was classified “Unrestricted: Suitable for mature audiences 16 years of age and over”, with the description note: “Contains violence” (OFLC Decision 9902349). Young people playing this game are exposed to lengthy repetitive sessions of “violence” involving combatants weilding weapons and inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The film Once Were Warriors was classified RP15 by the OFLC which allows any child under 15 years of age to view the film if accompanied by an adult or guardian. The brutal violence and cruelty depicted is recognised as relentless, of high impact and accompanied by vulgar and offensive language. The censor’s description states: “Contains violence”.

The Society (SPCS) contends that, in the light of the above classifications (many others could be cited) to restrict the DVD – End of the Spear – to those persons 16 years of age and over, is an unjustifiably harsh classification that is an assault on the principle of freedom of expression embodied in the Bill of Rights Act.

The harsh classification involves a failure by the OFLC to properly apply Section 3 of the Films, Videos and Publications Classificaton Act 1993. The Society agrees with the OFLC that the overwlelming impact of the film comes from its sensitive depiction of an epic story that highlights the themes of Christian faith, forgiveness, reconciliaton and Christian love. The latter is motivated by the missionaries’ passion to see a tribe on the verge of extinction – through violence – find the truth of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – which brings peace as one of its many fruits. The depiction of inter-tribal fighting and the murder of the missionaries, is integral to the telling of the true story and none of its presentation is gratuitous.

Kevin Costner’s 1990 epic film Dancing With Wolves which received a number of Oscar nominations, was classified “M” (unrestricted) – suitable for those 16 years of age and over -  by the Film and Video Labelling Body, with the description: “Contains Violence”. This film contains many graphic scenes involving the slaughter of Indians by whitemen, graphic scenes of the mass slaughter of buffaloes and other animals, cruel and brutal slayings of white men by Indians including grapic scenes of scalping and other atrocities. One scene involving mass carnage leaves the river red with blood and human corpses.

If such a film as Dancing With Wolves, of great historical significance, has been made available to NZ young people for cinema viewing and home viewing (DVD and video), then it is very hard to contemplate how the Chief Censor, Bill Hastings, his deputy Nicola McCully, a Classification Officer and a Senior Classification Officer, could possibly have reached the view that the film End of the Spear could possible warrant a R16 classification.

The CO and SCO signed their “actions” off, involving the classification process of this film, on 9/11/07. The SCO affirmed the recommendation on 12/11/07. The CO prepared the documents on 12/11/07 and the SCO/DCC/CC classified and signed the documents on 13/11/07. The DVD version of the film – End of The Spear – was registered as classified on 14/11/07.

The Society believes that many Christian parents and guardians as well as others, familiar with the story behind the film, would be keen to have their children aged 13-15 view the film. Parents are the best persons to assess whether of not their childrren are mature enough to view such a film which has received classifications in the US and Australia allowing those younger that 16 years to view it.

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

Re: End of the Spear (DVD 113 min 30 sec in length. Classified R16 By Chief Censor’s Office – the Office of Film and Literature Classification [OFLC]).)

The Society contends that the DVD feature End of the Spear, which is virtually identical to the 35 mm cinema version of the film that is currently screening in a number of New Zealand cinemas, should be classified by the Board as an unrestricted publication with a rating “M – Recommended for mature audiences 16 years of age and over.” It should carry a censor’s descriptive note such as: “Contains medium level violence including depictions of tribal warefare”.

The 35 mm version of End of the Spear has recently been reclassified by the New Zealand Film and Video Labelling Body (FVLB) as unrestricted (M: “Contains medium level violence”), – downwards from R16 – following a successful appeal by the distributor who pointed out that it had been wrongly cross-rated by the FVLB with the R16 DVD version. The distributor successfully argued that it should have been cross-rated, by law, with the identical publication classified unrestricted by the Australian censors, NOT the DVD version.

The FVLB therefore acknowledged that it had erroneously classified the 35 mm version as R16 – having erroneously cross-rated it with the DVD version (a different publication based on feature length) that had been classified by the New Zealand Chief Censor’s Office as R16. It is the latter classification (R16) of the DVD publication that the Society, supported by the DVD distributor Manna BookStore, is seeking to have reviewed by the Film and Literature Board of Review.

Concering the DVD publication:

1. This film was classified in the United States as unrestricted and recommended to viewers 13 years or older (PG-13).

2. In Australia the identical publication can be viewed legally by those 15 years of age or older; or those 15 if accompanied by an adult or guardian;

3. The medium level violence is not gratuitous, it is a historical record of low impact, and integral to the storyline.

In terms of s3(1) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act (1993) ["the Act"], the DVD publication deals with matters of cruelty and violence. (See s. 3(3)(a)(i): “the infliction of serious physical harm, or acts of significant cruelty”). However, note that S.3(3)(a)(i) is preceded by the statement:

” In determining, for the purposes of this Act, whether or not any publication … is objectionable … particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication – (a) describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with – (i) … the infliction of serious physical pain, or acts of significant cruelty.” [Emphasis added].

It is the Society’s contention that if the Board is to place restrictions on this film because of the identification of activities identified under 3(3)(a)(i), it must (“shall” is a legal imperative) place “particular weight” on demonstrating how “the extent and degree to which” each depiction of violence/cruelty, in practice, would constitute the film “objectionable” and “injurious to the public good.”

The Society believes that an R16 age restriction cannot be justified when such factors are considered carefully in the light of the overall Christian message of the film and its context. The task of the filmmaker is to tell a true story in which the martyrdom in 1956 of five young Christian missionaries at the hands of a notorously violent and ruthless tribe is central and do it in a way that the Christian themes of forgiveness and reconciliation are not subverted, overshadowed or corrupted by any hint of gratuitous depiction of violence and/or cruelty. Consequently, it is no surprise that when the filming techniques used, are competently analysed, the methodology used negates any possible gratuitous gain that could be made by any prolongd focus on the actual infliction of bodily harm or cruelty. For example, the searing physical impact of weapon thrusting and bodily penetration is absent, as are all the special effects used by film-makers in films that do depict gratuitous violence. The actual impact of weapons is off-camera and almost all of it is left to the imagination. The infliction of pain and cruelty is therefore largely implied directly or hinted at indirectly.

The barbarous and cruel nature of the Acau Indians is not played down. How can it be? It is an important feature of this documentary. It is revealed in a manner that is sufficiently realistic to make the true story credible and provoking.

Yes, there are a number of depictions of the infliction of serious physical harm and acts of significant cruelty throughout the feature, most of which are carried out by Auca tribesmen and women. The Acau are presented as a violent, cruel and savage tribe, who were almost on the verge of self-annihilation, as they fought not only other tribes, but themselves. The missionaries were passionate about bringing the message of God’s redeeming love in Christ to these people and see the outworking of that message bring peace and reconciliation.

There is a sequence near the beginning of the feature where a group of tribesmen attack other members of the tribe with spears and machetes at night time, while they are sleeping. A male warrior murders a baby in front of the older brother using a machete. The impact of the violence is off-camera and much is left to the imagination. It is medium level violence.

The strongest sequence of violence within the feature is when the five missionaries are slaughtered by a group of tribes people. Christian missionaries Nate Saint, Roger Youderian, Jim Elliott, Pete Flemming and Ed McCully — were murdered by a tribe of Indians whose reputation was legendary for its violence.

The strongest depiction is of Steve’s father, Nate being speared to death. He is speared in the upper chest and is then filmed very briefly in close-up from above, as he grasps the spear with his hand. A fleeting image of blood running from the wound over his chest is shown, emphasising that he did not die immediately..

Another fleeting scene implies that a missionary is hacked to death by two women wielding machetes. All the action is implied as the filming is confined to above the women’s waists.

A lot of the violence is implied and the film merely presents the aftermath of it, such as men lying with spears in their bodies.

There is nothing gratuitous about the way the film depicts the violence and it is not dwelt upon at all.

The film which won the Grand Prize for Dramatic Feature at the Heartland Film Festival (2005)
 is clearly intended for mature audiences and should be rated M.

We would urge the Board to reflect upon the following facts:

The DVD Treasure Island directed by Byron Hastin and released in 1950 is based on the famous well-loved story by Robert Louis Stevenson. It has been rated G – for general audiences (unrestricted), in both Australia and New Zealand, and yet it contains acts of serious physical harm and acts of significant cruelty. For example, the late Bobby Driscoll (d. 1968), who plays the leading role of  young Jim Hawkins, is savagely set upon by a treacherous mutineer while he cowers in a perch on top of the mast of a sailing ship. A knife is thrown at Jim by the mutineer at close range with considerable force and peirces his shoulder blade. The excruciating pain is conveyed in close up shots of his grimacing face and blood spills from the wound as he hauls himself in an ungainly manner down from the mast and then staggers across the deck of the ship. Young Jim fires a loaded pistol directly into the face of the attacking mutineer at close range from the crows nest and the camera zooms in on the mutineer’s face and later his body as it plunges to the deck far below, bouncing off the railings on its descent. A number of other scenes depict viscious hand-to-hand combats involving swords and knives with numerous body piercing and blood letting. One scene shows a knife thrown by a sailor at his fellow mutineer and the camera closes in on the point of penetration revealing a gaping wound and gushing blood. The sailor staggers in anguish across the deck before he slumps to the floor, blood oozing from his body.

The Oscar winning film  Dances with Wolves, directed by and starring  Kevin Costner, was rated PG-13 in the USA and M (unrestricted) in both Australia and New Zealand. It contained numerous violent scenes involving “.. the infliction of serious physical harm, or acts of significant cruelty”. It won best picture Oscar for a Western. The blood-thirsty clashes between the Sioux and Pawnee Indians and whitemen are graphically depicted. The scalping of whitemen and the gruesome bloody slaughter and butchering of buffalo are all depicted in sickening close range. In one memorable scene an Indian warrior stranded on his horse in the middle of a river is surrounded and set upon by tomahawk weilding enemy warriors. The soundtrack is overwheming. The river is flushed red with blood and corpses litter the streambed. The violence is not depicted in a gratuitous manner but it has a strong impact on the viewer.

These two examples – one a G-rated film – the other M rated – serve to highlight the point the Society wishes the Board to address. Is the “extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication [End of the Spear]” such that the publication as a whole should be considered “objectionable” to the extent that it be restricted to those 16 years and older. The Society concludes it should not be rated R16. The limited violence is inegral to the historical documentary and is not depicted in any gratuitous manner. A censor’s descriptive note as suggested, is all that is required to a film that should be rated M – like the 35 mm version now screening in NZ cinemas.

The Society is aware of no complaints that have been raised about the scenes depicting tribal violence in this DVD version of the film. The 35 mm cinema version has been screening at a commercial theatre in Otaki, on the Kapiti Coast (“Coehaven”) run by our Society executive member and former preident Grahsam Fox. No complaints have been received by him about this M rated film..

A morals group is calling for a film’s rating to be lowered from R16 so that younger audiences can experience its Christian message.

End of the Spear tells the true story of a group of Christian missionaries speared to death by an Ecuadorian tribe in 1956. The wives and children of the murdered men moved in with the tribe to teach them about God.

An edited cinema version of the film has been rated M (with a violence warning) by the Film and Video Labelling Body and has been shown at Coehaven private theatre in Otaki, Queensgate Sky City in Lower Hutt and several other cinemas nationwide. However, a three-minute-longer version of the film available only on DVD has been rated R16 by the Office of Film and Literature Classification because of its violent content.

David Lane, of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, went before the Film and Literature Board of Review to argue the DVD’s rating should be lowered to M – recommended for a mature audience – so that anyone could see it, with a warning that it contained medium-level violence and depictions of tribal warfare.

There were no “significant differences” between the two versions of the film, and the classification office was “playing up” the violent scenes, he said.

The film had themes of forgiveness, peacemaking and redemption and should be seen by a wide audience, he said. The violence was “medium level” and the film did not need to be restricted.

“It’s a film that’s got major appeal for this [under-16] age group. We don’t believe the film has gratuitous violence at all – it’s put in its certain historical context.

“You see a spear being thrown but you don’t see blood spurting from wounds.”
Chief censor Bill Hastings said that, in Australia, the longer version of the film had been classified MA 15+ (restricted to people 15 and over unless accompanied by an adult), and the edited version was rated M.

He was reluctant to comment in detail on the case before the board of review issued its decision, but agreed it was unusual for the society to argue for a film’s rating to be lowered rather than raised.

A revealing documentary about the effects of porn on consumers. “An Accomplished Film” Sundance Film Festival.

“Is porn really addictive? Are children being sexually exploited?  Who should teach sex education? How much of responsibility should the porn industry take to provide treatment for potentially addicted customers? Is porn a healthy sexual arousal tool for consenting adults? Should porn be used to treat sexual dysfunction? The film explores possible answers to these hard questions, providing an unexpected conclusion.” J.A. Reisman.

SYNOPSIS by Dr Judith A Reisman 

A fresh social and political look at the $57 billion-a-year Adult Entertainment Industry and its affects on 3 subjects who agree to view porn 1 hour a day for 30 days.

Shady strip club owners, angry strippers, crass porn stars, top-of-their-game experts and 3 unknowing subjects hammer out an uncomfortable look into the soul of the porn biz.  Director, Lance Tracy, IMDB (Best Director, NY International Film & Video Festival, 5-Telly winner) maturely balances humor, shocking honesty, science and entertainment.

THE ON-CAMERA EXPERIMENT:  A single man and a married man are subjected to a steady diet of porn, strip and sex clubs for 4 weeks. And the wife has plenty to say about it. The subjects consistently fill out behavior and attitudinal surveys.  With the help of several research experts, the filmmakers carefully document the results. Simultaneously, a major university independently conducts a similar study with 100 college students.  The results are staggering.

THE EXPERTS: In November of 2004, conservative Senator Brownback held a Senate hearing on the effects of pornography on America. He invited 4 experts who all testified that porn has only negative effects. This ticked off the porn and sexologist industries that see nothing wrong with it. Host & director, Lance Tracy hunts down these experts for a one-on-one. He also gives the porn industry a chance to respond to the hearing, including Ron Jeremy, Nina Hartley and Sharon Mitchell. Tom Sizemore and Art Alexakis from Everclear also weigh-in.

THE JOURNEY: Lance Tracy crosses the country on a political, social and moral search into the hearts of sex-workers, people on the streets, experts and the 3 subjects who unveil their souls. He looks behind the secretive doors of strip clubs, and private strip shows where self-masturbation is definitely legal and the bigger the tip, the bigger the trick.

THE EXPOSURE: He unveils surprising porn industry-involved business industries like:  AT&T, GM, countless hotel chains & family-oriented retail outlets. All sides get their fair share of the spotlight; sometimes uncomfortable.

THE ANSWER: Is porn really addictive? Are children being sexually exploited?  Who should teach sex education? How much of responsibility should the porn industry take to provide treatment for potentially addicted customers? Is porn a healthy sexual arousal tool for consenting adults? Should porn be used to treat sexual dysfunction? The film explores possible answers to these hard questions, providing an unexpected conclusion.

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2007/09/female_pedophil.html

September 15, 2007
http://www.1726entertainment.com

For Bio on Dr. Judith A. Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences” see her website:

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html

Brief CV

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html#cv

The latest Annual Report of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) tabled in Parliament yesterday, raises serious issues about its use of tax-payer funds ($3,458,777 held at 30 June 2007) and its lack of disclosure regarding its classification processes, particularly in relation to its clearance of well over 1,000 degrading and gratuitous hard-core pornographic DVD and video publications for “adult entertainment” (R18). Chief Censor Bill Hastings, his deputy, Ms Nicola McCully, and their team of over about 17 censors regularly view and pass this putrid and toxic moral filth for adult viewing. Hastings receives a salary package of between $200,000 and $210,000 and his deputy receives between $180,000 and $190,000 and both have been in the porn watching censor business for over a decade. Both are “openly gay”, hold statutory positions, and are executive members of the OFLC – a Crown entity that receives Crown revenue of $1,960,000 each year.

During the 2006/07 financial year the OFLC examined and made classification decisions on a total of 2,721 publications. Of these 1,362 (51%) were DVDs – over 80% containing sexually explicit hardcore porn content that degrades, demeans and dehumanises women to a high degree (multiple penetration, orgies, men ejaculating onto the faces of women etc.) [ref. 1]. Others feature young gay ‘barebacking’ porn stars modelling unsafe anal sex (sodomy) – an unnatural sexual practice that is known to be a major conduit of HIV transmission among gay men. In addition, 932 so-called “publications” (34%) classified were simple one page advertising “slicks” for hardcore porn videos and DVDs and a small number of ads for computer games featuring graphic violence, sex, etc. Well over 2000 publications (DVDs plus slicks) examined by Bill Hastings and his team in 2006/07 featured sleazy, offensive toxic hardcore porn.

As part of its core activity (“Output 1″) the OFLC is required to examine and classify and register all films submitted to it from the Film and Video Labelling Body (FVLB) based in Auckland. It has a statutory duty to classify all publications submitted in keeping with the law – The Films, Videos and Publications, Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”). The FVLC collects an application fee from distributors who submit films: $1,100 for each DVD and 35mm film, and $1,000 for each video. These fees provide a major lucrative source of revenue for the OFLC, – additional income to Crown revenue of $1.96 million. In 2006/07 the OFLC received $1,324,178 from the FVLB via such fees and $1,960,000 of Crown revenue.

The vast bulk of the task of examining and classifying each of the 1,362 DVDs in 2006/07 involved the 2 hour viewing of the material, carried out, according to Nic McCully, by one censor in a private booth [ref. 1]. Bill Hastings has reported that he regularly views the material in his own Office and shows it to guests, including journalists, with the curtains completely drawn – due to complaints he has received from nearby office workers offended by hardcore porn etc. [2]

The total time required by 17 OFLC censors to view all the DVDs submitted in 2006/07 was 2,724 hours. This corresponds to about four weeks work, if each of these 17 censors spent 40 hours a week just watching DVDs – continuously without a break. However, censors are not required to engage in film watching all day. According to McCully they spend only about 30 hours a week watching material on DVD or video. It would therefore take the team of 17 censors a little over 5 weeks to complete the task of viewing all the 1,362 DVDs.

The Annual Report 2006/07 indicates that the OFLC employs 3 senior classification officers, 14.4 full-time equivalent censors plus 2 casuals. Given that DVDs and advertising “slicks” constitute 85% of the publications examined and classified by the OFLC, and the fact that “slicks” can be classified within a matter of minutes, taxpayers should be asking why it cost the tax-payer $1.960,000 for the OFLC to operate, given that it receives $1,560,707 from other non-government sources, including the FVLB revenue.

While watching films censors fill out a check list, but according to a communication received by the Society from the OFLC dated 9 November 2007, since mid-2006 censors have been instructed by Hastings not to produce any more written decisions for films (including DVDs and videos) that contain any sexually explicit content.

The Society is asking why the Chief Censor has failed to make any mention of this important policy change in his Annual Reports. Written decisions that carefully set out the reasoning of censors in reaching their determination to classify hardcore porn film as “restricted” publications, in relation to criteria set out in the Act, have almost always been issued by the OFLC on request, prior to the mid-2006 policy change. In fact there has been the case as far back as the Act came into force about 13 years ago. Such written decisions contained critical information helpful to any applicant seeking to challenge a classification decision via the review process.

Hasting’s decision that has ended the production of a written decision for hardcore sex publications submitted from the FVLB, appears to be a deliberate attempt to deny the public the ability to assess whether the Office is applying the relevant censorship laws correctly. It also appears to be a deliberate and crude method of cost cutting that he has failed to disclose in his Report. All classification decisions on all publications constitute legal documents that can be submitted to the Film and Literature Board of Review or the Courts as part of any review process under the Act – relating to an OFLC classification.

While it is true that section 12 of the Act dealing with submissions from the FVLB does not specify that a written decision must be produced, it is implicit in the procedural structure of the Act that such a report be available to any distributor submitting a publication to the FVLB, once the classification decision is issued. By ordering censors not to produce such reports, the Chief Censor is effectively asking New Zealanders to just believe him that his Office’s classification procedures do take full account of the criteria in the Act.

In response to a request from the Society, made under the Official Information Act, to provide it with copies of written decisions on a series of hardcore gay DVDs that had been classified R18 despite reportedly containing ‘barebare back’ sex, the Chief Censor’s Office relied:

“None of the publications about which information was requested have written decisions. The Office is not legally required to provide written reasons for its decisions on films submitted under section 12 of the Act. Since mid-2006 it has not done so for sexually explicit films, except those requiring excisions or classified as objectionable. The Office does hold a file on each publication it has classified and this contains the relevant consideration sheet which sets out the reasons for the classification of the publication. These are available on request.”

In the absence of any written classification decisions being issued by the OFLC on these publications, the Society has responded to the OFLC by requesting copies of all the “consideration sheets” on file – produced by censors who examined all these “unsafe sex” gay DVD titles and other hardcore material. It plans to have this material tabled in Parliament to alert MPs and the public to the objectionable hardcore porn content matter being regularly cleared by Mr Hastings and his team for adult viewing. The Society intends to raise its concerns over the OFLC Annual Report [3] and its financial performance with the Auditor-General’s Office.

References:

[1] The Tastemaster by Derek Cheng

Canvas Supplement, The NZ Herald October 13, 2007, pp.12-14.

[2] Watching the Defectives by Grant Smithies Sunday Star-Times August 13, 2006.

Hastings has stated: “… My staff get a diet of the worst, which is not healthy! The vast majority of commercial submissions [over 80% of the material submitted for classification]…are sexually explicit videos and DVDs [porn]. We also get lots of child porn sent to us…” Express (10-23 May 2006, pp. 12-13)]

[3] The PDF version of the OFLC Annual Report 2006/07 can be downloaded from the OFLC website hompage: http://www.censorship.govt.nz

Crow, who recently failed in his bid for the Auckland mayoralty, continues to promote his most visible enterprise Erotica Adult Lifestyles Exhibitions (“SeXpo”) – promoted via “Boobs on Bikes” parades of topless pornstars in various New Zealand cities; and is the largest supplier of “adult” explicit sex publications (DVDs etc.) to the New Zealand commercial market. According to a North & South report, [in 2002] “he, his ex-business partner Fiona Gibb and his company Vixen Direct” faced no less than “135 criminal charges” – pleading guilty to 33 of the lesser charges – relating to the distribution of “objectionable” publications [3]. A Listener report in 2004 notes that he remains perfectly happy to be called a “pornographer” and a “sleazeball” [4]. He is managing director of the so-called “adult entertainment” (porn) empire CVC Group Ltd.

Hastings, like Crow, also has a lucrative job dealing with hard-core porn sleaze, earning about $190,000 a year censoring publications featuring the extreme degradation and humiliation of women for sexual arousal, paedophilia, sexual violence, necrophilia, bestiality, sex involving human faeces, and other “objectionable” content. However, one key difference between the two men is that Crow invests his own money into making, watching and selling degrading moral filth, while Hastings gets paid by the tax-payers of New Zealand to watch and rewatch it and study it in excruciating detail.

Hastings, dubbed “Mr Clean” in a recent NZ Herald article [5] and his dream team, predominantly women, operate from a plush Office on the 4^th Floor of BP House in Wellington, with spectacular commanding views over the harbour. They write lengthy reports that provide the legal justification for why this hard-core porn garbage can be viewed by those 18 years of age and older – classifying most of it as serving the purpose of “entertainment” – serving the purpose of adult sexual titillation etc. Hastings would maintain that by writing these lengthy reports detailing the finer nuances of all these explicit and degrading sex acts, etc. they are strictly fulfilling the requirements of the legislation by viewing and classifying the publications.

Hasting’s liberal attitude towards hardcore porn, which he has been assessing since 1989, was recently highlighted to readers of the NZ Herald when it was reported that he wouldn’t kick up much of a fuss if he caught his “kids”, including 13-year old son Toby, viewing hardcore porn [5]. The Society has argued that parents who truly care for the moral well-being of their children should avoid allowing them to socialise with the children of parents who demonstrate the same kind of laissez-fair attitude towards pornography demonstrated by Hastings. While his casual attitude to “gay porn” may be understandable, as he is “an openly gay man” in a relationship with a gay man Jeremy Baker of Wellington, the Society contends that the vast majority of New Zealand parents would vehemently oppose their children accessing such toxic and corrosive material.

According to Hasting’s Deputy, Ms Nicola McCully, an openly middle-aged lesbian woman, over 80% of the time spent by the 15 classification officers in the Office is in dealing with commercial DVDs and videos that focus on explicit sex – much of it involving sexual violence and the demeaning, degrading and dehumanising of women. “The misogyny in these sex tapes is very depressing,” McCully reports, and yet almost every one of them is approved by her and Bill for the adult sex titillation market. “Each censor watches the day’s assigned publications in individual viewing booths… I’d be lying if I said we hadn’t found something we’d seen arousing at some stage,” she confessed. “Outside the row of booths is a desk piled high with porn DVDs with titles such as “Buttman Returns” and “All Oral 6″, the report notes [6]. McCully, has her fair share of arousing lesbian sex tapes to “watch closely”. Hastings, who claims he is “not a fan of gay porn”, is required as Chief Censor to watch all gay porn that may possibly require excisions or require banning.

The Press [7] reports that Hastings has a large stretch of tapa (Polynesian) curtain cloth strategically positioned behind his work desk. It serves more than the function of sending the PC-message from this “high-ranking public servant” in his early 50’s that he has “a natural empathy for indigenous people.” It is drawn across his window each time he watches explicit sex DVDs and videos so that “workers in the adjacent building” are unable to see the pornography that regularly plays in his office. It was erected in response to complaints received by his Office from neighbours exposed to his diet of sick and morally corrupt explicit porn.

Hastings loves the job so much that last year he stated to the media “he would ‘kill’ for another term as Chief Censor” [8]. McCully loves her “dirty job” too [6]. They both appear to enjoy showing explicit sex material to reporters and high ranking public servants and shocking them. The Press [7] reports that McCully does at least provide warnings of the explicit sex “but nothing prepares you for the onslaught of appendages and orifices, and the frenzy of sexual activity conducted by a group of four men and two women” (on the DVD viewed).

Yes: hardcore is truly addictive for some middle-aged adults and it desensitises those over-exposed to it. It is noteworthy that Mr David Haines was Australia’s Deputy Chief Censor for approximately 13 years to 1993-4. By 1998, he had become involved in the business of producing of X-rated (erotic) films which are illegal to sell in all Australian States, although not the two Territories. Some have predicted that Hastings, whose had almost a decade immersed in the porn trough, may make a similar career move to Haines after he is finally removed from his statutory position as Chief Censor by the Minister.

Almost every one of the hard-core porn DVDs and videos produced by Steve Crow that have been submitted to Hasting’s Office, have been passed without cuts required and released to the adult (R18) home titillation ‘entertainment’ market. When the Society successfully sought “leave” from the Hastings to have one of the regular explicit sex videos that was being marketed by Crow via his company website, reclassified, and succeeded in getting it banned, Crow was outraged. He even wrote to the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. George Hawkins, to complain bitterly about the Society’s actions. Hastings conceded in his Office’s reclassification decision that seven significant excisions should have been made by censors to the video to remove degrading explicit sexual content, but these had been overlooked when it was first classified [3]. Crow who bragged to reporter once that his I.Q had once been measured at 148, [9] chose not to make the seven excisions, so the video had to be banned. He’s at least bright enough to know that cutting out the worst degrading sleaze from porn does not have help sales. It was not an economic option for him at the time.

Returning to the matter of the drug rape magazine … the Society applied for a banning order against Critic, just days after it was published and began to be distributed around Otago University and on the city streets of Dunedin. It argued in its comprehensive submission to Hasting’s Office that Critic tended to “promote and support” drug rape and was therefore “objectionable”. To the credit of Hasting’s Office it was banned for the juxtaposition of a “positive profile” [1] of a porn merchant with the offending drug rape article. It agreed with the Society that the publication as a whole tended to “promote and support” sexual coercion via drug rape and was therefore “injurious to the public good”.

The Society, while pleased with Hasting’s decision to ban the publication, pointed out the gross inconsistency of the Office in this decision. ‘In the light of this decision, why’, it asked in a press release, ‘had Hastings earlier classified rape films like Baise-Moi, Irreversible and Visitor Q for release into public cinemas by arguing that the explicit, gratuitous and degrading images of rape and sodomy contained in them served the “public good” by providing an “antidote against rape”?’ Furthermore, ‘why had Hastings accepted arguments from the films’ distributors based on so-called “artistic merit” to justify screening lengthy and explicit scenes involving brutal sexual violence, while banning Critic?

At least one senior MP, Peter Brown, Deputy Leader of the NZ First Party, has continued to call for the immediate removal of the Chief Censor and his Deputy by the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. Rick Barker, and their replacement by competent censors capable of correctly applying the censorship laws and reflecting family values. The Society knows of many other MPs, beside all those in the NZ First caucus, who support this call. Unfortunately the Minister finds no problem with dissemination of obscene and morally toxic filth via the Chief Censor’s Office, confirming this position in debate with Mr Brown, in parliament [10].

References

[1] Otago University Students’ Magazine Critic Banned.
Wednesday, 1 February 2006. Press Release: Office of Film and Literature Classification
“…The Classification office decided that the magazine is injurious to the public good because it places an instructional drug-rape article beside a positive profile of a man who makes a living by filming the extreme degradation and humiliation of women for sexual arousal…

“The magazine’s claimed ‘theme of offensiveness’ never discusses the nature of offensiveness, and does not acknowledge the ability of articles appearing to endorse sexual violence and misogyny to cause injury to the public good,” added Hastings.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0602/S00002.htm
Diary of a Drug Rapist. Critic Te Arohi, Issue 23, September 19, 2005.

[2] Report: Steve Crow’s Erotica Sleaze Banned.
Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc. 
Wednesday 23 August 2006

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0608/S00276.htm

[3] “The People Vs. Steve Crow,” by John Landrigan, North & South (Issue 207, June, pages 82-90). “Besides the porn baby [controversy], collectively he, his ex-business partner Fiona Gibb and Vixen Direct [Ltd] faced 135 criminal charges last year. Crow pleaded guilty to 33 of the lesser charges – for the distribution of objectionable material … he still faces seven regulatory infringements to a law he does not agree with.”

[4] Mass market penetration, by Matt Nippert and Patrick Crewdson. The Listener, August 21-27, 2004, Vol. 195 No 3354.
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3354/features/2449/mass_market_penetration.html

[5] The Taste Master by Derek Ching. Critic (NZ Herald supplement) Saturday October 13, 2003, pp. 12-14. See pp. 13-14:  “…he [Hastings] can’t see himself kicking up much of a fuss if he catches his kids with [“porn” or “gay porn”], so long as the material is legal.”
Also see: Chief Censor on “his kids” and porn watching
Tuesday, 16 October 2007, 9:49 am
SPCS Press Release: Society For Promotion Of Community Standards Inc.  
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00222.htm

http://www.spcs.org.nz/2007/chief-censor-hardly-fussed-if-his-kids-were-caught-watching-hard-core-gay-porn/#more-84

[6] Watching the Defectives by Grant Smithies Sunday Star-Times August 13, 2006. Hastings has stated: “… My staff get a diet of the worst, which is not healthy! The vast majority of commercial submissions [over 80% of the material submitted for classification]…are sexually explicit videos and DVDs [porn]. We also get lots of child porn sent to us…” Express (10-23 May 2006, pp. 12-13)].

[7] Censor and Sensibility, 4 November 2006 The Press.

[8] “He would ‘kill’ for another term as Chief Censor”
Thursday, 26 October 2006, 3:09 p.m.
Press Release: Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0610/S00297.htm
See interview with Chief Censor Bill Hastings Dominion Post (26/10/06, D3),

[9] Steve Crow, Sunday Star Times 29 July 2007.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4144586a24815.html

[10] Minister defends Objectionable and Obscene Filth
http://www.spcs.org.nz/2006/minister-defends-objectionable-and-obscene-filth/

AMAZING GRACE, the story of William Wilberforce (1759 – 1833) was released in New Zealand cinemas on July 19, 2007. Much anticipation and excitement within the Christian community surrounded the release of this remarkable film. It has received glowing reviews (see below).

AMAZING GRACE tells the stories of two very important Christian icons, John Newton and William Wilberforce.

John Newton (played by Albert Finney) wrote the words to Amazing Grace, one of the most beloved hymns of all time while working as an evangelical pastor. Son of the commander of a merchant ship, Newton was captain of a slave ship for many years, until he underwent a dramatic religious conversion while steering his vessel through a storm. Repenting and regretting the misery he had inflicted on the thousands of human cargo he had transported across the Middle Passage for many years, he devoted his life to the Church, and wrote the lyrics to many hymns which are still popular today.

William Wilberforce was elected to the House of Commons at the age of 21, and over the course of two decades, took on the English establishment and persuaded those in power to end the inhumane trade of slavery. He pursued a life of service to humanity. Not limiting himself to just abolitionist work, he dedicated his life to what he called his "two great objects:" abolishing slavery in the British Empire and what he called "the reformation of manners [society]." To this end, he advocated for child labor laws, campaigned for education of the blind and deaf, and founded organizations as diverse as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the National Gallery (of Art). "Good causes," it has been said, "stuck to him like pins to a magnet."

AMAZING GRACE is rated PG so it is a film families can attend together..

This film would ideal to attend in a group as it is a catalyst for thought and further discussions. To make group bookings please contact your local cinema.

The film is directed by Michael Apted and has a Running Time of 118 Minutes. It has been rated PG (Adult Themes) and stars Ioan Gruffudd (Black Hawk Down), Romola Garai, Youssou N’Dour, Albert Finney (Erin Brockovich), Benedict Cumberbatch (To the Ends of the Earth), Michael Gambon, Rufus Sewell (The Illusionist, The Holiday), Ciaran Hinds, Toby Jones.

For further information please visit www.amazinggracemovie.co.nz

PRESS QUOTES

"Just as The Nativity Story last year, and The Passion of the Christ in 2004, Amazing Grace this year presents the Christian community general and local Churches in particular, with a golden outreach opportunity."
– Christian Today, Australia

"A brilliant and powerful presentation of one of the most moving moments in modern history. William Wilberforce is the model and hero of my life. I was thrilled to the bone watching this "amazing" movie. No Christian should miss this film." – Chuck Colson, Founder
- Prison Fellowship Ministries

"Amazing Grace is an epic story that calls attention to the works of God in the life of man. It reminds us of the power of the individual to make a difference in the lives of others."
- Reverend Floyd Flake

"Amazing Grace illuminates a pivotal moment in world history…an important story…compellingly told, sumptuously shot, and masterfully acted."
- Rebecca Rothbaum, O Magazine

"Amazing Grace," a story of idealism, idealists and speaking truth to power, understands there is something inordinately moving and dramatic about a man who stands up for what is right and makes a difference in this life"
- Kenneth Turan Los Angeles Times

"A movie that dazzles the eye, touches the heart, and stirs the soul’
- Michael Medved

Amazing Grace follows Wilberforce’s career through his 20’s and 30’s, as he and his fellow humanitarians make the issue of slavery a talking point, not only in political circles, but also throughout the country. They wage the first modern political campaign, using petitions, boycotts, mass meetings and even badges with slogans to take their message to the country at large.

Boasting a terrific ensemble cast, Amazing Grace also stars Romola Garai as Barbara Spooner, the beautiful and headstrong young woman who shares Wilberforce’s passion for reform, and who becomes his wife after a whirlwind courtship. Michael Gambon (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) is Lord Fox, an MP that is convinced by Wilberforce to join the fight against the slave trade. Rufus Sewell (Legend of Zorro) plays Thomas Clarkson, one of Wilberforce’s allies in the anti-slavery movement, and Grammy winning Senegalese singer Youssou N’Dour is Olaudah Equiano, an African sent as a slave to the Colonies who bought his freedom and made his home in Londonwhere he became a leading figure in the fight to end the slavery of his fellow countrymen.

Add to this these salary costs those of the three senior classification officers (Mike Yule, Michael Harman and Susan Moore) whose combined salary package is about $180,000; and the salaries of the 11.3 full-time equivalent classification officers and two “casuals”, the combined total remuneration costs to the OFLC involved in achieving Output 1 is $976,293 (2004/05) and $1,082,735 (2005/06). These costs are only just covered by the income received by way of “Third Party Revenue” paid by distributors etc. in the form of classification application fees.

When these total annual personnel costs involved in achieving  Output 1 are deducted from the total annual expenditure by the OFLC in achieving Output 1; massive additional overheads are highlighted. In 2004/05 the additional overhead was $1,355,297 and in 2005/06 it was $1,393.323. These operating costs (non-personnel) are paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer. It is the porn industry that is the big winner here. Producers of hardcore porn titles stand to earn on average about 45% profit over production costs for each new title within the first few years. The classification fees they pay to the OFLC are miniscule compared to their profits and don’t even go half-way towards paying the true costs of the classification. It is the taxpayer who pays the difference.

An analysis of the OFLC Financial Statements for 2004/05 and 2005/06, is set out below, illustrating the above points. 

Financial Accounts 2004/05 (see OFLC Annual Report 2005)

In 2004/05 the total revenue received from Third Party Revenue to fund Output 1 (Examination, Classification and Registration of Publications)  =                      $975,311 [A1]

The total expenditure by the OFLC on Output 1 =                                          $2,331,590 [A2]

The difference  = Total Overheads for Output 1   =                        $1,356,279 [A3] = [A2-A1]

The combined salaries of the Chief Censor and Deputy Chief Censor =     $320,000 – $340,000
82.21% of this combined salary ($330,000) is used to achieve Output 1          = $271,293 [S1]

The estimated combined salaries of three senior Classification Officers         = $180,000 [S2]

The estimated combined salaries of 11.3 F/T equiv. staff and 2 casuals         = $525,000 [S3]

Total Remuneration (Classification Unit plus Executive Contribution 82.21%)
                                                                                         = $976,293 [S1 + S2 + S3] = [R1]

Total Expenditure on Output 1 [A2] – Total Remuneration (Output 1) [R1]         = $1,355,297 

Revenue sources additional to Third Party

Crown Revenue = $1,337,706
Other (including Interest) = $160,039

Conclusions:

1. The total remuneration ($976,293) to personnel for work directly related to Output 1
(including the 0.82 F/T equivalent input from the Chief Censor and his deputy and casuals) was probably covered by Third Party Revenue ($975,311) in 2004/05.

2. The true cost to the OFLC to achieve Output 1 was not covered by Third Party
Revenue. Total Expenditure on Output 1 was $2,331,590 so that after all
personnel costs had been covered (funded by Third Party) there were operating costs overheads of $1,355,297.

3. All non-personnel operating costs ($1,355,297) were able to be covered by a combination of Crown Revenue ($1,337,706 and Other Revenue (including interest) of $160,039.

4. OFLC achieved Output 1 with a heavy subsidy by the New Zealand taxpayer to cover overheads over and above Third Party revenue, calculated as $1,355,297.

THE PROBLEM:

Factoring in Data provided to parliament by Minister of Internal Affairs

The Hon. Rick Barker provided average annual costs for each of the tasks engaged in by the Classification Unit in achieving Output 1. These costs took into account personnel costs and overheads. Using this data the Society calculated that the it cost the OFLC $783,902.11 to classify and register all 2,164 publications it received in 2004/05 taking into account as the Minister stated “personnel costs and overheads”).

The difference between this expenditure to achieve Output 1 and the total expenditure given in the Annual Report to achieve Output 1 ($2,331,590) = $1,547,688

There is therefore a gap of $1.55 million, unaccounted for in the 2005 Annual Report relating the Output 1

Analysis of the OFLC Financial Statements 2005/06

2005/06 Financial Accounts (see Annuall Report 2006)

In 2005/06 the total revenue received from Third Party Revenue to fund Output 1
(Examination, Classification and Registration of Publications) =                    $1,298,693 [B1]

The total expenditure by the OFLC on Output 1 =                                          $2,476,060 [B2]

The difference = Total Overheads for Output 1 =                            $1,177,367 [B3] = [B2-B1]

The combined salaries of the Chief Censor and Deputy Chief Censor =    $340,000 – $360,000
82.21% of this combined salary ($350,000) is used to achieve Output 1 =         $287,735  [T1]

Estimated combined salaries of 3 senior Classification Officers          = $180,000 [T2]                                                                                         
Estimated combined salaries of 11.3 F/T equiv. staff plus 2 casuals    = $615,000 [T3]

Total Remuneration (Classification Unit plus Executive Contribution 82.21%)
                                                 = $1,082,735 [T1 + T2 + T3] = [U1]

Total Expenditure on Output 1 [B2] – Total Remuneration (Output 1) [U2]
                                                               = $1,393,325

Revenue sources additional to Third Party

Crown Revenue $1,371,894
Other (including interest) = $177,291

Conclusions:

1. The total remuneration ($1,082,735) to personnel for work directly related to Output 1 (including the 0.82 F/T equivalent input from the Chief Censor and his deputy and casuals) was probably covered by Third Party Revenue ($1,298,693) in 2005/06.

2. The true cost to the OFLC to achieve Output 1 was not covered by Third Party Revenue. Total Expenditure on Output 1 was $2,476,060 so that after all personnel costs had been covered (funded by Third Party) there were operating costs overheads of $1,393,325.

3. All non-personnel operating costs ($1,393,325) were able to be covered by a combination of Crown Revenue ($1,371,894) and Other Revenue (including interest) of $177,29.

4. The OFLC achieved Output 1 with a heavy subsidy by the New Zealand taxpayer to cover overheads over and above Third Party revenue, calculated as $1,393,325.

THE PROBLEM:

Factoring in Data provided to parliament by Minister of Internal Affairs

The Hon. Rick Barker provided average annual costs for each of the tasks engaged in by the Classification Unit in achieving Output 1. These costs took into account personnel costs and overheads. Using this data the Society calculated that the it cost the OFLC $990,302 to classify and register all 2,595 publications it received in 2005/06 taking into account as the Minister stated “personnel costs and overheads”).

The difference between this expenditure to achieve Output 1 and the total expenditure given in the Annual Report to achieve Output 1 ($2,331,590) = $1,485,758

There is therefore a gap of $1.48 million, unaccounted for in the 2006 Annual Report relating the Output 1

References

1 David Wilson, Manager of the OFLC Information Unit has confirmed in a letter to the SPCS dated 16 November 2006, that “Application of [“a method approved by Audit New Zealand and referred to on page 55 of the 2005 Annual Report”] … resulted in the notational allocation of 82.21% of all overhead costs including Executive salaries to the production of Output 1.”

2 Deputy Chief Censor, Ms Nicola McCully has confirmed that senior classification unit staff receive a salary close to $60,000. “Watching The Defectives” published in the Sunday Star Times (13/08/06).

3 Personnel numbers provided on page 86 of the 2005 OFLC Annual Report. Average annual salary package assumed to be $40-45,000.